Point tax
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
SD wants to abolish the malus tax 1, review the chemical tax 1 and gradually phase out the congestion tax 1. S believes that the electronics tax should be reviewed and raised to the European level 2. M argues that the government is acting powerfully by lowering the fuel tax 3, wants to abolish the aviation tax and expand nuclear power 3. V wants to phase out climate-damaging subsidies 4, phase out the tax reduction for fossil diesel 4, introduce a geographically adjusted road tax 4, a progressive aviation tax 4, a distance-based tax on heavy trucks 4 as well as a differentiated taxation of pesticides 4. KD wants to lower fuel prices and energy taxes 5. C wants to implement a green tax shift 6, introduce a travel deduction 6, lower the fuel tax 6 and raise the ceiling for the reduced alcohol tax 6. L believes that the energy taxes are too high and should be lowered 7 as well as wants to remove the indexing of the electricity tax 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Erik Hellsborn (SD)
Madam Speaker! We shall therefore discuss the excise taxes. The Sweden Democrats support the committee's proposal for a decision.
Sweden's tax policy must be characterized by justice, logic, and respect for people's everyday lives, but that is not always the case. The congestion tax, for example, has become something completely different from what was originally promised. It was intended to reduce traffic and improve the environment in our large cities, but the reality looks different. Today we see how this tax functions as an extra burden on people who have no alternative to the car. It is a penalty tax on workers, small business owners, and pensioners who struggle to make the puzzle of life fit together.
The congestion tax hits low- and middle-income earners particularly hard. For many, the car is not a luxury but a necessity. It is about being able to get to work, drop the children off at school, or get to the health center. The tax makes it more expensive to work, not least for those who live in outer areas or in the countryside, where access to public transport is limited. This is both unfair and socio-economically inefficient.
The referendum on congestion pricing in Gothenburg also provides an indication of low popular support. It may therefore be worth looking at a gradual phasing out of the congestion tax in order to seek other solutions instead.
The congestion tax is not the only tax that needs to be reviewed, Madam Speaker. Moving forward, we also want to see an abolition of the malus taxation. It affects those who need to use larger vehicles, for example, entrepreneurs or people with disabilities who need extra cargo space for, for instance, a ramp or a wheelchair. Malus also results in fewer people switching to more modern vehicles, which ironically leads to increased emissions. It is simultaneously, in practice, a penalty tax for the disabled. It is time to scrap this failed system.
A review of the chemical tax is also desirable. It is in practice a penalty tax on home electronics that has minimal environmental effect but a large negative impact on Swedish companies and consumers. The Swedish market is simply too small to influence the offerings of large, global companies, and the tax therefore only functions as an extra surcharge for the consumer without the environment gaining anything at all from it.
Madam Speaker! There are also taxes that we have changed for the better during the mandate period. The differentiated alcohol tax has not only benefited small companies and helped them to expand but has simultaneously made a contribution to the Swedish tourism industry and drinking culture. The lowered fuel tax, in combination with reduced reduction obligation, has made gasoline and diesel several kronor cheaper, and reductions in the electricity tax have saved many Swedish households from being completely ruined. Much good has been done, but more remains to be done.
Kalle Olsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 23 on the chemical tax.
Excise taxes are, therefore, consumption taxes on certain goods and services. They are taxes that collectively generate significant revenue for the state, well over 100 billion per year. Just like other taxes, they provide funds that we can use for various collective utilities, so when one fuels the car, flips on the light switch, or buys the Friday beer, one can keep in mind that they are also contributing to the common good, which perhaps can provide some form of satisfaction even in these expensive times.
What otherwise distinguishes excise taxes is that they often have an additional purpose beyond the purely fiscal one, namely to act as a steering mechanism. There are many opinions on how the excise taxes steer and hit. For example, the temperance movement and the alcohol-producing actors have diametrically opposed views on whether the level of the spirits tax, wine tax, and beer tax is correct.
As members of the Committee on Taxation, we have the great privilege of being able to take part in the breadth of the views that exist regarding the excise taxes, and it is important to take them into account. Many want to influence their excise tax in a more favorable direction. Personally, I am struck by the fact that there are often, if not good, also reasonable arguments for views that I might initially be quite skeptical of. A common objection is that a certain tax leads astray and does not have the steering effect we want to achieve. Sometimes these objections are reasonable, and sometimes the criticism is more a reflection of it being an unwelcome cost that eats up the margins. Regardless, it is important to repeatedly reflect on the effects of the taxes and whether they steer in the direction we want them to steer in.
Public health and environmental considerations are two examples where correctly designed excise taxes can contribute in a more positive direction. Sweden was, for example, one of the first countries to introduce a carbon tax; it was done during the early 90s. If not correctly designed, excise taxes can become more of costly irritants. An example that increasingly points to the latter is the chemicals tax, or the electronics tax in everyday speech.
The purpose of the electronics tax is to reduce the occurrence of hazardous substances in people's home environments by taxing household appliances such as refrigerators, microwave ovens, and electronics containing certain flame retardants. The purpose of the tax can thus be described as good, but evaluations show that it has neither had positive environmental effects nor been cost-effective. The electronics market is global, and Sweden accounts for only a few tenths of a percent of the total market. An electronics tax in Sweden does not affect manufacturing processes to any significant extent; instead, the tax becomes primarily an additional cost for importers, Swedish traders, and ultimately already hard-pressed Swedish households.
Point taxes are perhaps not at the epicenter of the major tax policy disputes. We Social Democrats, however, believe that the design of the electronics tax should be reviewed to ensure that the tax produces the desired effects. The most reasonable course of action may be to raise the issue to the European level and strive for a more unified European response.
In both this and previous reports on excise taxes, one can note a broad consensus among the parties that the electronics tax is problematic and should be reviewed or, as some argue, even be abolished directly. In the bourgeois camp, the criticism of the electronics tax has been clear for a long time. Before they came into a governing position in 2022, they were very much against the tax, but since then they have softened. It therefore appears a bit strange that more parties cannot stand behind a review of the tax.
The question of the electronics tax is one of many examples of why Sweden would benefit from a broader tax review. The starting point for such a review should, among other things, be to strive for stable tax revenues to secure the financing of our common commitments but also to create predictability so that citizens and companies know what applies and, speaking of the electronics tax, understand the purpose of the tax.
Boriana Åberg (M)
Madam Speaker! On Monday, the announcement came from the government that the tax on fuels would be lowered temporarily to counteract the consequences of the war in the Middle East. The tax on gasoline is lowered to the EU's minimum level and will become approximately 1 krona cheaper per liter at the pump, while the tax on diesel is lowered by approximately 40 öre per liter at the pump.
The ongoing war in the Middle East has caused a disruption in the global energy markets and has resulted in rapid price increases for oil and gas, which, if the development becomes prolonged, risks hindering economic development globally and in Sweden.
That is why the government is acting powerfully and quickly. Higher energy prices can lead to reduced purchasing power while companies' production costs increase. Therefore, it is important to support Swedish households. People who work, contribute to society, and struggle with the everyday puzzle should feel that support is available when the crisis hits. The government takes into account that the crisis could be long-lasting and will apply for exemptions from the EU Commission to further lower the tax on fuel. This could open up for a reduction of up to an additional 3 kronor per liter.
Unfortunately, not everyone shares the same sense of crisis. Already hours after the government's press conference, the Environment Party's spokesperson stated that the government, through reduced fuel taxes, is locking households into a fossil dependency.
Madam Speaker! Every time someone in the speaker's chair speaks positively about the tax cuts on fuels, another speaker comes along and portrays these as a stinging defeat for the climate and environmental work. But the critics forget that lowered fuel prices were a promise that the Tidö parties went to the election on, which contributed to them gaining the Swedish people's confidence to form a government.
The Swedish people want fuel prices that they can afford. The policy of reduced taxes on fuels has a very large legitimacy.
Very few people drive for the sake of pleasure. People need the car to make their daily lives function. The nursing assistant who works at night and has no other alternative than to take the car is not an environmental criminal. The industrial worker and the father of small children who must drop the children off at preschool and need the car to arrive at work on time is not an environmental criminal. Those who live outside the urban areas in regions where public transport is sparse are not environmental criminals either. In an elongated country with large distances like Sweden, mobility is a necessity, not a luxury.
The same applies to aviation. That is why the government abolished the aviation tax, a counterproductive tax that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet now want to reintroduce, moreover in a new, more aggressive version. Miljöpartiet wants to double the abolished aviation tax, and Vänsterpartiet wants to make it progressive. Probably it will be both if the worst happens and these two growth-hostile parties are allowed to participate in forming a government after the autumn election.
Regardless, the proposal to reintroduce the aviation tax is completely out of touch with reality, especially in these times when the war in the Middle East is raising fuel prices and Russia's war in Ukraine is lengthening flight routes.
Sweden is the country that has lost the most accessibility with flights since the pandemic. Recently, SAS announced that the company is cancelling hundreds of flights during March and April, this in order not to pass the costs on to the passengers.
The airlines are part of a cycle that also includes airports, ground staff, and a lot of other industries connected to the aviation industry. Everyone knows, or at least should know, how important the local airports are for air ambulance services and for preparedness when a war is ongoing in Sweden's immediate vicinity. Therefore, aviation should not be burdened with extra taxes.
Madam Speaker! Sweden was once one of the world's most energy-efficient countries, with secure electricity supply systems and low electricity prices. It laid the foundation for a strong and successful export industry and for Sweden's welfare.
Unfortunately, Sweden's robust power supply, built on nuclear and hydropower, is but a memory. Decades of mismanagement and the decommissioning of fully functioning nuclear reactors have not only led to billions of kronor in lost value but also to power shortages, weather dependency, and the import of dirty coal power – and, most sadly of all, to high electricity prices, especially for us in Skåne and the rest of electricity price area 4 and also electricity price area 3.
On 1 January, the government lowered the energy tax on electricity by 20 percent. Yesterday, the announcement also came that the government wants the annual indexation of the electricity tax to be abolished.
Soon, electricity support will be paid out to households as compensation for the high electricity prices in January and February. It is, of course, welcome. However, the support is something that only alleviates the symptoms, it does not cure the disease.
What cures the disease is the expansion of fossil-free, weather-independent, predictable nuclear power. For the first time in 40 years, we have a government that ensures new nuclear power is established in Sweden, something that future generations of Swedes will have reason to be grateful for.
Madam Speaker! Sweden has a well-managed economy. Since September 2022, Sweden has moved from the bottom to the top of the EU's growth, inflation has gone from 10 percent to under 2 percent and mortgage rates have fallen. And perhaps most importantly: The tax burden is the lowest in 50 years – yes, actually since Gunnar Sträng's days.
We Moderates believe that ordinary people should have power over their own finances. It should pay to get up, go to work, strive, and make good for oneself.
I move for approval of the committee's proposal, Madam Speaker.
Andrea Andersson Tay (V)
Madam Speaker! Today we face a planetary triple crisis. Global warming, loss of biodiversity, and pollution threaten our future life possibilities. There is much that must be done to take us out of these crises, and tax policy is a tool we must use. Vänsterpartiet wants to see a comprehensive tax reform that levels the economic and regional gaps and promotes a sustainable use of resources with low environmental and climate impact in accordance with our climate and environmental goals.
An important step is to quickly phase out the climate-damaging subsidies. The previous government phased out a few of them, but the current government has clearly shown that it does not prioritize the climate transition. It is urgent to take measures so that Sweden can get back on track in the work for zero emissions.
One example is the current design of the travel deduction, which favors high-income car users in large cities. The Riksdag decided in 2022 to redesign the system, but it was stopped by the current government. We want to see an action plan for how remaining climate-damaging subsidies can be phased out in the near term. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 8.
Another example of a climate-damaging subsidy is the tax reduction for fossil diesel within agriculture. The Climate Policy Council assessed in its 2025 report that the government should strengthen and streamline support for climate measures in agriculture and highlighted, among other things, the need to quickly phase out tax reductions for fossil diesel. This is to be combined with compensatory policy instruments that ensure that farmers' competitiveness is not impaired.
We in Vänsterpartiet agree with the Climate Policy Council and believe that the government must work for a rapid phasing out of the tax reduction for fossil diesel and simultaneously introduce compensation to farmers to avoid a negative impact on their profitability.
Madam Speaker! It is important that steering mechanisms are designed in a way that they do not reinforce but reduce gaps between urban and rural areas, and that compensatory measures are implemented to avoid negative distribution effects. To meet an increased electrification of road traffic with strengthened regional justice, it is important to begin the work on a reform of the road traffic taxation.
We want to see an investigation of the conditions for a geographically adapted road tax for passenger cars, with a higher road tax in large cities that have good access to public transport and a low or abolished road tax in the countryside where alternatives to cars are lacking. A differentiated road taxation of this type can steer towards more sustainable modes of transport, while at the same time it would contribute to strengthened regional justice.
The potential for a more transport-efficient society is greatest in large cities and larger towns. The environmental and climate impact from transport in larger cities can be addressed, for example, with the help of congestion charges and investments in better public transport and opportunities for cycling.
A municipality cannot today make decisions on its own to introduce congestion charges. We think that is wrong. Municipalities and regions should themselves be allowed to decide whether they want to introduce congestion charges and how they should use the revenues.
Today, electric public transport vehicles such as trains, metro trains and trams are exempt from energy tax in Sweden. Electrified buses are not covered by this tax exemption, despite the fact that they contribute to reduced emissions and less air pollution and noise. Opportunities for the government to allow electric buses to be covered by the same exemption from energy tax already exist in the energy tax directive. The EU Commission has confirmed this and approves that member states introduce tax exemptions for electric buses.
We mean that Sweden should seize this opportunity. In the same way as other electric public transport is exempt from energy taxation, the electric buses should also be.
Madam Speaker! Heavy truck traffic does not pay today for the impact it has through its external costs to society in the form of, for example, environmental and climate impact and wear and tear on the roads.
Vänsterpartiet has for a long time advocated for a distance-based tax on heavy trucks that should be possible to differentiate. In collaboration with us, the previous government produced a memorandum where it was proposed that the taxation of heavy truck traffic be changed from a time-based to a distance-based taxation.
The proposal aims for truck traffic to pay for its external costs to a greater extent and to contribute more significantly to financing infrastructure and leveling the competitive conditions between Swedish and foreign truck traffic operating in Sweden. It is high time that this is implemented.
Madam Speaker! Air travel causes a disproportionately large share of greenhouse gas emissions and must therefore be reduced significantly. Vänsterpartiet wants a progressive aviation tax which means that passengers pay more tax the more they fly. For the first flight, the tax shall be quite low to then be successively increased in line with the increase in the number of flights.
Madam Speaker! Apart from the climate crisis, we also face, as said, a pollution crisis. Since 2017, there has been a tax on chemicals in certain electronics aimed at reducing the occurrence of hazardous substances in people's home environments.
An evaluation by the Swedish Tax Agency and the Swedish Chemicals Agency shows that the tax has not achieved the positive environmental effects that were intended and that it is also not cost-effective. Vänsterpartiet therefore wants the tax to be evaluated and revised to ensure that it does not counteract reuse and circular solutions.
Due to the threats to biological diversity, and more specifically to pollinators, it is also very important that Sweden achieves better taxation of pesticides. Today's taxation unfortunately has far too small an environmental effect. Denmark, Norway and France have significantly stronger legislation, where the tax increases with the toxicity of the agent, which has led to farmers switching to less toxic agents.
Vänsterpartiet sees a great need to introduce a differentiated taxation of pesticides in Sweden which, similar to what applies in other countries, increases with the pesticide's toxicity. The revenues from the tax should be reinvested into agriculture to develop sustainable plant protection methods.
Boriana Åberg (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Andrea Andersson Tay, and welcome to the Committee on Taxation's debate!
The leader of the opposition said that her party wants a progressive aviation tax. That is, the more one travels, the higher the tax one should pay. In addition to the principled objections I have against the aviation tax, namely its negative impact on Sweden's competitiveness and on accessibility and its unclear climate benefit because the tax does not take into account whether the aviation uses environmentally friendly fuel or not, it is primarily about its lack of effectiveness. A national tax makes no difference, but it would be much better if an agreement could be reached at the EU level or globally.
My questions concern the practical design. Who will keep track of how much a person flies? Will the different airlines be required to report to some instance? Shall each person state in their declaration how many times they have traveled? How will it be checked that the exact number of trips has been stated? Will it matter whether one travels for work or for leisure trips? Will it matter whether one travels domestically or abroad, within Europe or to some other continent?
Madam Speaker! I think these are very interesting questions to get answers to.
Andrea Andersson Tay (V)
Madam Speaker! Let us begin by stating that aviation must decrease if we are to reach the climate goals.
Aviation accounts for a disproportionately large share of emissions, especially considering how many people fly in a year and how much emissions come from flying.
It would naturally be absolutely excellent if one could solve such questions at an international level, but unfortunately, those possibilities do not exist today. In that case, we must use the means available, and therefore Vänsterpartiet submits the proposal for a progressive aviation tax. For us, it is important that personal integrity is taken into account when designing such a tax. We have been clear about that, and we also, of course, want the tax to effectively serve its purpose: to reduce flying.
Beyond that, I unfortunately cannot provide any details today. If Boriana Åberg has more questions regarding this, she is very welcome to ask them at another occasion to the Left Party's transport policy spokesperson, who surely has deeper knowledge.
Boriana Åberg (M)
Madam Speaker! I do not think we need to reduce aviation. On the other hand, we should invest more in environmentally friendly solutions that already exist. There is aviation fuel produced from waste cooking oil, and there is electric aviation. There are all the possibilities to increase accessibility and competitiveness in Sweden through aviation.
The question of how to keep track of how much people travel in order to apply a tax is also an ideological question. Andrea Andersson Tay represents a party that in its roots has been very – how shall I put this in a kind way – successful in monitoring people.
Big brother is watching you. I come myself from Bulgaria, a country that was ruled by the predecessors of Andrea Andersson Tays' party. There was truly no freedom and no equality there, even though one wanted a society where everyone was equal. Instead, the individual's needs were completely overridden in the name of a brilliant future and a brilliant society – the socialist and communist society.
I am therefore very concerned about a progressive tax where one is to control how much people travel, because it will inevitably result in a control society, which I do not want. I want to emphasize, Madam Speaker, that I also do not want an aviation tax.
Andrea Andersson Tay (V)
Madam Speaker! I truly regret the bad experiences that Boriana Åberg has from her country of origin.
Such a system is, of course, not something that Vänsterpartiet stands behind. There are parties that today are putting forward proposals that involve increased surveillance in Sweden. Vänsterpartiet is not among them, but it is very much a matter of the sitting government.
The big difference between Vänsterpartiet and Moderaterna when it comes to climate policy is that we, on our part, listen to the research and want to look at the facts, while Moderaterna, on their part, build their climate policy on fantasies and hopes of various kinds.
Biofuels are currently an extremely limited phenomenon within aviation. According to research, there are currently no conditions to make aviation climate-neutral.
The opportunity we have is therefore to significantly reduce flying, and we must do so.
Cecilia Engström (KD)
Madam Speaker! Today we are addressing the issue of excise taxes – taxes that to a very large extent affect people's everyday lives. It is about what it costs to get to work, to run a company, to heat one's home, and to live an ordinary life in Sweden.
It is important to put this debate into context. A few years ago, Sweden was in a situation where the costs for, among other things, fuels and energy had been driven up to levels that hit households and small business owners hard. It is those who do not have any realistic alternatives to the car and who are dependent on reasonable energy costs.
Madam Speaker! Since 2022, the Christian Democrats and the government have step by step restructured the policy. We have lowered the tax on petrol and diesel and adjusted the reduction obligation and thereby pushed back the fuel prices. It has not been symbolic politics; it has been concrete relief in people's wallets.
Action has also been taken in the energy area. In a situation where electricity prices and energy costs have constituted a major source of concern for both households and companies, the government has prioritized stability and competitiveness. This is a clear change of course from a policy where taxes are largely used to steer, to a policy where people's actual living conditions are also taken into account.
Madam Speaker! This was also confirmed as recently as last Monday when the government held a press conference. Once again, the need to keep costs down for households and companies was emphasized. The focus is on strengthening the economy, safeguarding purchasing power, and ensuring that Sweden does not lose in competitiveness. It is a good message. In times of international crisis and economic uncertainty, more burdens were not needed, but stability and responsibility were needed, as well as a government that acts as it does now when it lowers both fuel prices and the energy tax.
Madam Speaker! Against this background, the reservations in the committee report also become clear. Here are proposals to change or sharpen various excise taxes on fuels, energy, and transport. These are proposals that risk increasing costs for ordinary people once again. We Christian Democrats believe that this is the wrong path to take. The climate transition is necessary, but it must occur in a way that people can manage. If the policy becomes too expensive or is perceived as far removed from people's reality, it risks losing legitimacy.
Madam Speaker! The point taxes must also be seen in a larger context, namely Sweden's competitiveness. Companies operating in Sweden do not only compete with each other but also with companies in other countries. If the costs for energy, transport, and production become too high, investments risk being withheld and jobs risk disappearing from Sweden. It is therefore crucial that the tax system does not unnecessarily hinder business operations.
Madam Speaker! It is fundamentally about what kind of society we want. We Christian Democrats want a society where politics takes responsibility for the whole, where climate goals, economic growth, and people's living conditions are weighed together. We do not want a society where taxes are used to an ever greater extent to steer people's everyday lives regardless of the consequences.
Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats want a policy where it pays to work, where companies can grow and where people, regardless of where in the country they live, can make their daily lives work. Therefore, we say no to proposals that drive up costs even further. I therefore stand behind the committee's proposal in the report, and I move for the motions to be rejected.
Ulrika Liljeberg (C)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating excise taxes – a subject that for many may sound technical and perhaps a bit dry. But I want to argue that it is the opposite. What we are talking about today is the very foundation of our social contract. One works, one does one's best, one follows laws and regulations, and one pays tax in different forms. In return, the public sector, the state, fulfills its obligations, for example, defense, the justice system, welfare, and infrastructure. This is called the social contract, and in it, taxes are a fundamental part. But taxes are also a steering tool where we know that by lowering or raising taxes, one can influence behaviors.
Madam Speaker! In the report before us, we see a pattern that has become all too clear. A long series of important and forward-looking proposals from Centerpartiet and other opposition parties are being brushed aside. The Government refers to ongoing work and argues that everything is largely in order. But for the person who runs a business in the countryside, for the person who is dependent on the car to make everyday life work, or for the person who wants to invest in the green transition, everything is not in order. The reality outside the walls of Rosenbad is different.
Centerpartiet sees taxes as one of our most powerful steering tools. We can, and we shall, use tax policy to build Sweden stronger. Our principle is simple and has been guiding for us for many years, namely a green tax shift. We shall raise the tax on what we want less of, that is emissions and environmental destruction, and we shall use the revenues to lower the tax on what we want more of, that is jobs and entrepreneurship, which in turn creates growth and increased tax revenues for our welfare.
Let us talk about the countryside. For those who live in Vansbro, Krokom or Limmared, the car is not a choice, it is an absolute necessity to make life work. To then, as we have seen for a long time, tax distance is both unfair and counterproductive. We know from Trafikanalys reports that the countryside drivers already pay far more than the socio-economic costs of their car travel, while it is the opposite in the cities.
The Center Party's response is not a one-sided tax cut that primarily benefits city car owners, but rather it is about targeted and fair reforms. We have proposed a travel deduction with a higher mileage compensation in the countryside and a significantly lowered fuel tax precisely where alternatives to the car are lacking. This is also the reason why we have pushed so that the temporary reduction of the tax on agricultural diesel should not only be extended but also made permanent and converted into a technology-neutral agricultural deduction.
Sweden's farmers are the backbone of our food supply, and they need long-term and competitive conditions. They should not have to live with constant uncertainty, depending on temporary extensions in annual budgets. It is a matter of strategic self-sufficiency and security for our entire country.
Madam Speaker! Another area where the government's passivity is palpable concerns our small business owners. Sweden's small and medium-sized enterprises are the engine of our economy. They create four out of five new jobs. The Centre Party therefore welcomes the reduced alcohol tax for small producers, but we want to go further and raise the ceiling so that more can be included.
We in Centerpartiet also want to differentiate the gambling tax to curb risky gambling on online casinos in favor of forms of gambling linked to sports and community life throughout the country, for example, trotting.
In summary, we see a pattern. When the Centre Party proposes concrete measures to accelerate the climate transition, simplify for entrepreneurs and create fair conditions between city and country, the government responds with passivity, references to ongoing work and an unwillingness to take the problems as seriously as they deserve.
It is not enough. Trust in our common systems is built on the fact that they work, that they are fair, and that the state acts with strength and vision. We need a broad tax reform that takes a holistic approach, that is, a reform that simplifies, that lowers the tax on work and entrepreneurship, and that truly shifts the tax burden to environmentally harmful emissions. That is how we build a stronger, greener, and more cohesive Sweden.
Madam Speaker! With that said, I move for approval of the Center Party's reservation 27 on tax on gambling.
Anders Ekegren (L)
Madam Speaker! Today's debate is about excise taxes. Broadly speaking, it can be said that we have excise taxes for two different purposes, which in themselves can be reconciled.
The first purpose is that excise taxes are purely fiscal. The state needs the money to use it for various purposes. The road tax can well be considered such a tax.
The second purpose is that the state wants to regulate consumption. This can involve reducing carbon emissions, reducing alcohol consumption, or steering towards the use of more environmentally friendly alternatives.
Today we will deal with motions that span a wide area, namely energy taxes, fuel taxes and congestion taxes as well as taxes on aviation, alcohol and pesticides – to name a few areas.
Excise taxes do not live an independent life. First, the state levies tax on income from work and pension. Then, the citizens, with previously taxed funds, pay both VAT and various excise taxes.
On January 1 of last year, two excise taxes, on gasoline and diesel, were lowered because the costs for the individual consumer were approaching 30 kronor per liter. Trump's war against Iran is truly causing problems for both the Swedish economy and the world economy. Today, the war has been ongoing for almost a month, and no peace is in sight. This has resulted in sharp price increases for gasoline and diesel. The Tidö parties will therefore lower the tax on gasoline and diesel to the EU's minimum level for five months, from May 1 to September 30. This concerns 40 öre on diesel and 1 krona on gasoline.
It is an important measure so that the nursing assistant who lives in the countryside can get to her job. If one wants the whole country to live, measures are actually required.
It will be interesting to see how the opposition, especially Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, will take a stand on this. Much suggests that they instead want to raise taxes on gasoline and diesel.
Madam Speaker! In this debate in the chamber, I intend to focus on the energy taxes. We will not escape the fact that the state needs money for various purposes, but imposing significant taxes on electricity does not feel like the right priority. The negative environmental impact that electricity may potentially carry, depending on how it is produced, is best resolved through a tax on emissions.
Sweden's energy system has become less robust and predictable through the left-wing parties' unnecessary and premature decommissioning of nuclear power. It led to one of the world's best energy systems, with nuclear power and hydropower as the main energy sources, being significantly weakened. Sweden was previously self-sufficient around the clock and throughout the year. It was good for the economy of companies and households and for the climate, and it was security-politically wise.
The decommissioning has led to a power shortage when we need the electricity the most. Sweden needs a mix of different types of energy where nuclear power is included as an important part and can be combined in a good way with more weather-dependent types of energy. It is extremely important that there is predictable power. During the winter, the sun hours are few. This year it was also so cold that the wind power simply stood still. The Liberals have nothing against renewable types of energy, but we must have a lot of secure types of energy as base load.
Madam Speaker! The electricity tax has in some years been very burdensome for companies and private individuals, especially in southern Sweden. Therefore, in previous years, the government has provided support during the winter half-year. Even this year, the government is lowering the energy tax by 10 öre per kilowatt-hour, which means approximately 2,000 kronor per year for a villa owner. The reduction of almost 20 percent applies to the entire country.
There is a broad political consensus that we need to transition our energy system. There have been various reasons for having a point tax on electricity, from purely fiscal reasons to oil prices and energy efficiencies. Now, energy taxes should rather be lowered to favor electrification in Sweden. Sweden's competitiveness and welfare depend on there being access to fossil-free energy at competitive prices. This is important for both companies and private individuals.
The Liberals' view is that the energy taxes are too high, and I perceive that even the other Tidö parties have realized this. That is why we are lowering them. Representatives, primarily from the Social Democrats, have made a big deal in the chamber about when the indexing of the electricity taxes will be removed. Now it is happening. The proposal is that the indexing of the electricity tax shall be removed as of January 1, 2027.
The Social Democrats had the opportunity to implement this change over eight years. But the change is happening now thanks to the Tidö parties, and the Liberals consider it to be a very good measure.
Other measures are also possible. The important thing is that we lower the tax on electricity to favor electrification.
Madam Speaker! With this, I move to approve the committee's proposal in the report.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.